From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@gmail.com,
jack@suse.cz, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:08:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AA9F63.9070600@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160128154257.GA564@swordfish>
On 01/28/2016 07:42 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/16 19:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>>> ah... silly me... you mean the first CPU that triggers the spin_dump() will
>> ^^^ this, of course, is true for
>> console_sem->lock and logbuf_lock
>> only.
>>
>>> deadlock itself, so the rest of CPUs will see endless recursive
>>> spin_lock()->spin_dump()->spin_lock()->spin_dump() calls?
> [..]
>>> Can you please update your bug description in the commit message?
>>> It's the deadlock that is causing the recursion on other CPUs in the
>>> first place.
>
> no, don't update anything. I was completely wrong. it's not a deadlock
> that is the root cause here.
>
> even if at some level of recursion (nested printk calls)
> spin_dump()->__spin_lock_debug()->arch_spin_trylock() acquires the
> lock, it returns back with the spin lock unlocked anyway.
>
> vprintk_emit()
> console_trylock()
> spin_lock()
> spin_dump()
> vprintk_emit()
> console_trylock()
> spin_lock()
> spin_dump()
> vprintk_emit()
> console_trylock()
> spin_lock() << OK, got the lock finally
The problem is you have postulated a very shallow recursion.
This looks much worse if this happens 1000 times, and
probably won't recover to output anything.
Additionally, what if the console_sem is simply corrupted?
A livelock with no output ever is not very helpful.
As I wrote earlier, I don't think this is the way to fix
recursion problems with printk() [by eliding output].
Rather, a way to effectively determine a recursion is in progress,
and _at a minimum_ guaranteeing that the recursive output will
eventually be output should be the goal.
Including dumb recursion like a console driver printing
an error :/
Then, lockdep could remain enabled while calling console drivers.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
> sem->count--
> spin_unlock() << unlock, return
> arch_spin_lock() << got the lock, return
> sem->count--
> spin_unlock() << unlock, return
> arch_spin_lock() << got the lock, return
> sem->count--
> spin_unlock() << unlock, return
>
>
> ...um
>
>
>> But I found there's a possiblity in the debug code *itself* to cause a
>> lockup.
>
> please explain.
>
> -ss
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-28 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-27 12:01 Byungchul Park
2016-01-27 22:49 ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-28 7:15 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29 8:19 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28 1:42 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28 2:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 4:36 ` byungchul.park
2016-01-28 6:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 8:13 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28 10:41 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 10:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 15:42 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 23:08 ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2016-01-28 23:54 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29 0:54 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 3:00 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29 4:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 12:15 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29 0:27 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 4:32 ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-29 5:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 5:48 ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-29 6:16 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 6:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:30 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] printk: introduce console_reset_on_panic() function Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] printk: introduce reset_console_drivers() Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:47 ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-31 12:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] spinlock_debug: panic on recursive lock spin_dump() Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-02-01 16:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-02-02 7:59 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] printk: introduce console_reset_on_panic() function kbuild test robot
2016-01-29 6:54 ` [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code Byungchul Park
2016-01-29 7:13 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 8:13 ` Byungchul Park
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56AA9F63.9070600@hurleysoftware.com \
--to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=akinobu.mita@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome